• This code would require the plan to include a road that goes to the undeveloped lot to the <br />north (on Hawkins). Just like with Secondary Access, they say they can’t do it because the <br />slope is too great—but really, it’s because they don’t want to lose any lots. <br />• If we have any engineers out there, feel free to analyze the area and come up with an <br />alternate road plan to connect the lots!! <br />Summary of our argument: the above codes have not been met. We believe a secondary access <br />is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, due to the fire risk in our area and the limited <br />access to individual homes on the site plan. <br />DESTROYING/DISTURBING NATURAL AREAS <br />EC 9.8330 Unless specifically permitted by the hearings official, vegetation, topography, and other <br />natural features of areas proposed for a PUD shall not be substantially altered until final PUD <br />approval, and then only as authorized by the final PUD approval. “Substantially altered” includes, <br />but is not limited to, site grading and removal of trees or other vegetation. If a subdivision is <br />required, site alteration shall not be permitted until after tentative subdivision approval is granted. <br />(Note: the developer is asking for only Tentative approval at this stage.) <br />The developer wants to do what he tried to do before and reroute the storm water that <br />comes onto Lot 18 from the Braewood West development above it (Suncrest, 29th, etc.) via <br />a pipe before Final PUD approval. He tried to do this earlier, illegally, and the state made <br />him completely undo the damage and return it back to its prior state. The pipe is just short <br />of the property line. <br />Because of this history of illegal actions, the City Planner is recommending that the <br />developer NOT be allowed to alter anything until final approval! We need to second, third, <br />and fourth this recommendation!!! <br />EC 9.4930(3)(J) Uses Subject to Standards Review Within /WR Conservation Areas… <br />Construction of a private access road where no other point of access is available except through <br />the /WR conservation area of a Category A, B, C or D stream or a Category A, B, or C wetland, <br />and where the number of stream or wetland crossings is the minimum necessary for the approved <br />use. Subject to EC 9.4980 /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone Development <br />Standards (2) through (6) and (10). <br />This is the code that protects Category C streams (that’s what our Goal 5 Inventory stream is) <br />when they need to be crossed during construction by having standards that the developer must <br />meet. <br />The developer is seeking approval to cross the stream without actually explaining how they <br />plan to minimize impact to the stream. They are asking to defer the Standards Review until <br />the final platting. <br />EC 9.4930 This code and its subsets outline what can (example: remove invasive species) and <br />cannot (example: remove native species) be done within the setbacks for the Goal 5 Category C <br />stream on the property. The setback required is 40 feet on either side of the stream, as measured <br />from the top bank of the stream. <br />Summary: 1) We agree with the City Planner that, based on the developer’s prior actions in <br />illegally trying to reroute stormwater, they should not be granted an exception to EC 9.8330. <br />2) We want a Condition or a deed restriction so that anyone who purchases a lot or future home